AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.B. Dixit, J.—This appeal is against the award dated 25.1.1996 of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, at Dabra, passed in Claim Case No. 13 of 1992. Learned Counsel of the appellants/claimants has submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation only to the extent of period of retirement of the deceased.
We have heard the learned Counsels of the parties at length and carefully perused the record. We are of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has also considered compensation considering the post-retiral period.
Learned Counsel of the appellants further urged that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted amount of Rs. 1,660/- from his salary on account of gross income. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has not deducted the amount of family pension which was Rs. 2,000/- per month. On the other hand, it has been held in Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kashmiran Mathur & Ors. v. Sardar Rajendra Singh and Anr. reported in 1983 JLJ 113, that the amount of family pension can reasonably be deducted if nature and incident of pension are ascertained and probable benefits available to the deceased are taken into account. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation, which, in our opinion, is rather on higher side.
Learned Counsel of the respondent No. 5, Insurance Company, during the argument on his cross-objections, has admitted that the amount of compensation need not be interfered with. However, he has emphasized on the rate of interest being at higher side. According to the learned Counsel of the respondent No. 5, the rate of interest is liable to be reduced on account of delay caused by claimants/appellants. However, after perusal of the record it was only a delay of about a year, which in our opinion cannot be taken to be an undue delay. In the circumstances, the rate of interest cannot be reduced on this count.
Another argument raised on behalf of the learned Counsel of respondent No. 5 is that he is liable to pay only half amount of compensation as it was a case of composite negligence. In this respect our attention is drawn to the statement of K.P. Shrivastava (P.W. 4). However, P.W. 4 in para 1 of the statement has clearly indicated that the Vehicle No. MKH-7799 (Swaraj Majda) colluded on the left side of the Jeep. This, in our opinion, is not the case of composite negligence. The cross-objections has no merits and are rejected.
In the result, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.